Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Bells Corners, Canada

Schwartzberg L.S.,The West Clinic | Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology | Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | And 5 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Methods: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. Findings: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.


Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | Urban L.,Matrahaza Healthcare Center and University Teaching Hospital | Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology | And 6 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015

Background: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. Findings: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.


Lee T.K.,British Columbia Cancer Agency | Breau R.H.,Urology | Eapen L.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center
Journal of Sexual Medicine | Year: 2013

Introduction: There is limited data on post-treatment quality of life (QoL) for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) with prostate cancer (PCa). QoL in MSM may not be reflected by assessment tools designed for the heterosexual population. Aims: Our goals were to evaluate post-treatment QoL in PCa patients who are MSM, and to investigate the utility of current QoL assessment tool. Methods: PCa patients treated with surgery and/or radiation were recruited from the local MSM community. Each participant completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), and a questionnaire focused on insertive and receptive roles of anal intercourse. Main Outcome Measures: Response scores were calculated based on questionnaire design and compared by treatment modality. Results: Seven participants treated with surgery (mean age 58) and eight participants treated with radiation (mean age 67) were recruited. No participant in the surgical group received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) while two in radiation group were treated with ADT. The sample size of this study did not permit formal statistical analysis, although potential differences in Urinary and Bowel Domains from EPIC and Ejaculation Scale from MSHQ were observed. More participants from the radiation group seemed to be able to maintain both insertive and receptive anal intercourse roles after treatment compared to participants who received surgery. Conclusions: While the two validated assessment tools suggested similar QoL scores including sexual function for both surgical and radiation groups, post-treatment sexual function related to anal intercourse may be better in the radiation group, as compared to the surgical group. Larger studies in PCa patients from MSM community are warranted to verify these data. 2013 International Society for Sexual Medicine.


Hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) is an uncommon tumour, but its incidence is increasing in Canada and elsewhere. Currently, there are no Canadian recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of hcc, and possible options may have regional limitations. A consensus symposium was held in the Ottawa region to consider current diagnostic and management options for hcc. These recommendations were developed: • Diagnosis-with adequate imaging, a biopsy is not required pre-surgery, but is required before the start of systemic therapy; lesions smaller than 1 cm should be followed and not biopsied; repeat biopsies should be core tissue biopsies; magnetic resonance imaging is preferred, but triphasic computed tomography imaging can be useful • Resection-recommended for localized hcc • Radiofrequency ablation-recommended for unresectable or non-transplantable hcc; should not be performed in the presence of ascites • Transarterial chemoembolization (tace)- doxorubicin with lipiodol is the agent of choice; trans-catheter embolization is an alternative for patients if tace is not tolerated or is contraindicated • Medical management-first-line sorafenib should be considered the standard of care • Transplantation-suitable patients meeting Milan criteria should be assessed for a graft regardless of other treatments offered The authors feel that the recommendations from this consensus symposium may be of interest to other regions in Canada. © 2010 Multimed Inc.


Bar J.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center | Moskovits N.,Weizmann Institute of Science | Oren M.,Weizmann Institute of Science
Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology | Year: 2010

p53 is a major tumor-suppressor gene, inactivated by mutations in about half of all human cancer cases, and probably incapacitated by other means in most other cases. Most research regarding the role of p53 in cancer has focused on its ability to elicit apoptosis or growth arrest of cells that are prone to become malignant owing to DNA damage or oncogene activation, i.e. cell-autonomous activities of p53. However, p53 activation within a cell can also exert a variety of effects upon neighboring cells, through secreted factors and paracrine and endocrine mechanisms. Of note, p53 within cancer stromal cells can inhibit tumor growth and malignant progression. Cancer cells that evolve under this inhibitory influence acquire mechanisms to silence stromal p53, either by direct inhibition of p53 within stromal cells, or through pressure for selection of stromal cells with compromised p53 function. Hence, activation of stromal p53 by chemotherapy or radiotherapy might be part of the mechanisms by which these treatments cause cancer regression. However, in certain circumstances, activation of stromal p53 by cytotoxic anti-cancer agents might actually promote treatment resistance, probably through stromal p53-mediated growth arrest of the cancer cells or through protection of the tumor vasculature. Better understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms is thus required. Hopefully, this will allow their manipulation towards better inhibition of cancer initiation, progression and metastasis. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Discover hidden collaborations